Template talk:Multiple issues

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Request to add talksection parameter[edit]

The following cleanup message templates have optional parameters to link to a specific section in a talk page:

However these links are not shown in the abbreviated rendering when wrapped inside {{Multiple issues}} (see for example Acetone peroxide). Hence I would like to add an optional |talksection= to {{Multiple issues}} so that it is still possible to link to a specific section of the talk page where a centralized discussion about the issues raised by the attention banners can take place. I have prototyped the link in the sandbox and tested it here. (Note that I have temporarily used the sandbox version in the Acetone peroxide example so the talk page link now points to the appropriate talk page section.) Thanks. Boghog (talk) 10:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The edit to Acetone peroxide was not a demo but rather a temporary fix to an active dispute. The sandbox demonstration was tested here. Boghog (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting question.svg Question: Is linking to a single specific section for one of multiple issues (which could be resolved independently) really a good idea? Linking to a section dedicated to only one of the issues is potentially confusing for users wishing to discuss one of the other issues, and directs traffic away from the correct section in that case. fredgandt 15:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I disagree with the approach. In the example there are separate talk sections for each issue. Creating a redundant general link to a third section, or selected link to one, but not the other section, are not ideal solutions. Better would be to modify each individual template which has talk-link parameters, to include the talk link in the "brief" version of the problem messages which are shown in multiple issues. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree that it would also be useful modify the individual templates so that the talk page link is displayed in the individual templates and I would very much welcome suggestions on how to do this. However it is often the case that an editor that is introducing multiple templates might also want to have the discussion in one location optionally separated by sub headings. Right now there is no way to link to a specific talk page section if {{Multiple issues}} is used and we need at least a fall back solution. Boghog (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
That's a good point; I guess I can go along with that, though I'm not sure how necessary it is or how much it would be used. It would be nice if editors dropping three or four (or five or six) issues on an article all at once would also initiate talk about the issues. Seems to me that they rarely do that. Typically this happens on newly created pages, and finding specific discussions on virgin talk pages is not a problem. wbm1058 (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree that including |talksection= is theoretically a problem since several of the sub templates may point to different sections of the talk page. However as it now stands, none of these talk page section links would be shown if wrapped in {{Multiple issues}}. In addition, as far as I can tell, the only two attention banner templates that contain |talk= or |talksection= parameters are {{Cleanup}} and {{Expert needed}}. Currently there are only 16 articles that contain both of these templates and also |talk(page)=. In many of these articles, the |talk= is blank and there is a single example (Carnitine) where there is more than one non-blank |talk= parameter and in this example, all parameters point to the same section of the talk page. Hence currently there is not a single live example where adding |talksection= to {{Multiple issues}} would cause a conflict. Hence based on current usage, a conflict in talk page links is extremely unlikely. Boghog (talk) 10:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Regarding how to modify individual issue templates to show links to talk page sections in both the more verbose standalone version, and the briefer "multiple issues version", see this diff for an example of how I modified {{orphan}} to still include the "find links" tool link in the "multiple issues version" of the message. See Template:Ambox#issue and fix for documentation. I suppose the solution here would be to make the link generated by the talk parameter still get displayed in the "compact" version of the Ambox message. wbm1058 (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the tip. It is easy enough to modify {{Expert needed}} to show the talk page link even if it is wrapped in {{Multiple issues}} (see this diff). However this somewhat defeats the purpose of the {{Multiple issues}} which is to show condensed versions of the wrapped templates. Hence I am really not sure that is the best solution either. Boghog (talk) 08:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • One additional thought. Having a general talk page link in the {{Multiple issues}} and a section link in {{Expert needed}} is both redundant and confusing. It is better to give editors an option to specify a link to a centralized discussion. Also please keep in mind that any editor using |talksection= would be making a conscious decision to do so and therefore is more likely than not to use it appropriately. Of course, this parameter might be misused, but the same could be said about most any parameter. Boghog (talk) 10:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
When linking to an article's talk page for multiple issues, it is impractical, confusing and potentially disruptive to link to only one section. I agree that where a talk section can be and is specified for an individual issue, the smaller version of that issue (when displayed via Multiple issues) should include that link as it does in its larger stand-alone condition. This then becomes the responsibility of {{Ambox}} and its Module:Message box with no changes to {{multiple issues}} required, and as such, I propose moving this discussion to those talk pages, where it be suggested for deliberation, that the smaller versions of any issue message with a talk section link displays that link. fredgandt 10:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • How is this impractical? One could equally argue that having redundant talk page links in the banner shell and in the individual banners is confusing. Also including the talk page links increases the size of the small version of the templates and somewhat defeats the purpose of using {{Multiple issues}}. Furthermore there may be legitimate reasons to link to a centralized discussion if that is how the editor that placed these banners decided to organize the discussion. Hence this is a very practical proposal. The only way the use of |talksection= could possibly be disruptive is there were more than one talk section being linked. As pointed out above, there are currently zero live examples of this, so this is likely to be a very rare event. Boghog (talk) 11:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • The documentation can be written to further reduce the already unlikely possibility of misuse, for example:
|talksection=: the section of the talk page explaining what needs to be done. This parameter should only be used if there is a single centralized discussion concerning the type and extent of clean-up required. If there is more than one talk page section linked from different article message boxes, it is better to place these outside the {{Multiple issues}} template.
Boghog (talk) 12:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Boghog - you've just made an argument against your own implementation of your bulldozed sidestepping {{Multiple issues 2}} with "This parameter should only be used if there is a single centralized discussion concerning the type and extent of clean-up required". This is exactly my point; the main link to the talk page is biased in favour of one of the multiple issues which is potentially confusing and likely in widespread use to cause conflict.
Appending a simple and short "Discuss" link to each of the multiple issues where that parameter is specified will not greatly increase the size, and maintaining a general link to the article's talk page is correct when referring to the discussion of all the multiple issues. Arguing that a link to an article's talk page is ever "redundant" is frankly ridiculous.
I would consider it perfectly clear if viewing a multiple issues template with individual "Discuss" links appending each issue, and a general "Talk page" link at the top for discussions, which is appropriate for what. Right now, your live kludge (methodology 3 editors have expressed objection to) shows only one link to the talk page which targets discussion about only one of the multiple issues. fredgandt 13:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Quite to the contrary, a centralized discussion is a good thing that will lead to less, not more confusion. And how exactly will this to lead to conflict? I don't follow your logic. It is more important to consider how templates actually are used rather than theoretically could be used. The hypothetical problems that you raised are grossly exaggerated. Concerning your second point, too many links in close proximity is called overlinking that equally applies to the contents of rendered templates as it does to prose. Finally 3 editors have expressed objection – false. Only one has. wbm1058 above, while not completely agreeing with me at least acknowledged the point I was trying to make. GoingBatty in this edit was probably objecting to using a sandboxed template in mainspace and so far has expressed no opinion on the actual template proposal. Boghog (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Acetone peroxide currently has two attention banners, {{Expert needed}} and {{Refimprove science}} and only the first supports a talk page parameter. Refimprove is self explanatory and generally does not need to be discussed. If someone does have a question about the sourcing, it would not hurt to add this to the expert needed section as a subheading since these two issues are interrelated. And to reiterate what I have already stated above, there are only two attention banner templates that support talk page parameters which minimizes the chance of conflict and confusion. Boghog (talk) 14:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • In the interest of completeness, scanning this list I found a number of additional attention banners (see below) that support a talk parameter. Searching these for potentially conflicting talk page parameters did not find a single case confirming that the probability of conflicts is very low. The other remarkable statistic is that these talk parameters are not widely used (total template transclusions and number of which have a talk page parameter are listed below) confirming wbm1058's suspicions.
List of attention banners supporting talk parameters
  1. {{Tone}} – 8,133 transclusions (14 of which specify a talk parameter)
  2. {{Expert needed}} – 4,891 (303)
  3. {{Cleanup}} – 3,962 (67)
  4. {{Disputed}} – 1,710 (14)
  5. {{Autobiography}} – 1,606 (3)
  6. {{Disputed section}} – 304 (5)
  7. {{Buzzword}} – 318 (0)
  8. {{Contradict}} – 179 (3)
  9. {{Contradict-other}} – 101 (0)
  10. {{Contradict-other-multiple}} – 9 (1)
  11. {{Unfocused}} – 148 (0)
  12. {{Coatrack}} – 55 (0)
  13. {{Incomprehensible}} – 15 (0)
  14. {{Requires attention}} – 15 (1)

Searches for potential |talk= parameter conflicts:

  • 1 & 2 & |talk= 1 example and the talk parameter is blank.
  • 1 & 3 & |talk= 1 example and only one talk parameter is used.
  • 1 & 4 & |talk= 0 examples
  • 2 & 3 & |talk= 16 examples and only one with multiple talk parameters (Carnitine) and in this case, they all point to the same talk page section.
  • 2 & 4 & |talk= 6 examples and in 4 of these, only one talk parameter is used is each, no talk parameter is used in other 2

RfC - Options so far[edit]

The consensus is that we should edit the template to enable option #3 (show link in compact child templates where a customised link is specified), but option #2 is not behaviour that we want to encourage so it shouldn't be done. @Fred Gandt, Wbm1058, and Mr. Stradivarius: Please go ahead. (I've come to close this discussion per an WP:ANRFC request.) Deryck C. 10:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above suggests 4 possible routes:

  1. Do nothing.
  2. Allow the current "Talk" link to be manipulated to a specific associated talk page section.
  3. Allow the talk link option in the child issues templates to show.
  4. As #3, but also remove the main "Talk" link.

A fifth option not yet discussed (above) is to rethink the layout/presentation of multiple issues altogether; rather than effectively crippling the normal functionality of the child issues templates, we could collapse them to little more than a list of issues i.e. "Expert attention, cleanup and citations needed", then allow the reader to expand the whole template to show the full versions of the children, including their associated links where provided. fredgandt 17:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Options #2 and #3 are not mutually exclusive. One could do both thereby providing editors with the option to link to either one centralized discussion or one or more issue specific discussions. I have implemented #3 for {{Expert needed/sandbox}} in this edit and added some test cases wrapped in the {{Multiple issues}} template here. The disadvantage of only implementing #2 #3 is there would be two talk page links, one to the top of the talk page and second to a specific section. This is somewhat confusing. The fifth option to suppress the talk page link combined with #3 I think might be useful. Collapsing the daughter templates IMHO is a non starter. These templates need to be displayed in an abbreviated form. Boghog (talk) 17:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I have no problem adding a general link to a specific section, but I would also be interested to explore other options for a compact link for each individual issue. This could be a single word ("discuss") or perhaps an icon. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC option #3 - Option to show links in compact child templates[edit]

Myself, wbm1058, MSGJ and Boghog seem to agree that having each child template's talk link (if used) show in the multiple issues format would be either nice to have or at least better than nothing. If we could all please state our agreement or disagreement (as appropriate), regarding just this one possible course of action, simply and clearly for the record, we may at least have a workable place to start.

  1. Support fredgandt 23:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support. I don't believe this should be controversial. Implementation discussion below. wbm1058 (talk) 01:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  3. Comment. I would support this option if an additional option that suppresses the talk link in the parent were provided. If the child templates contain section specific talk page links, then the generic parent link becomes redundant and potentially distracting. Why display a link to the top of the talk page if section specific link(s) are provided? Boghog (talk) 05:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
    I don't like the idea of suppressing specific links to talk-page sections, which could lead to overlooking a forked discussion. Which is why I think the "compact" version of the message should still show a link. wbm1058 (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
    I completely agree with you that the child template should show a link if specified. What I am requesting is that the editor be given the option of suppressing the generic link in the parent template precisely so the child link is not overlooked. In summary, my proposal is absolutely not to suppress specific links, but rather to optionally suppress the generic link to the top of the talk page. One last note. As a practical matter, overlooking a forked discussion based on present usage is unlikely. There are presently zero examples of attention banners pointing to different sections of a talk page. Boghog (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
    @Boghog: - Do you oppose child template talk section links (when provided) showing if your condition is not met? fredgandt 16:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
    No, but see my comment directly above. Boghog (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The {{Ambox}} talk parameter is implemented in the Lua Module:Message box. The standard verbose message is "Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page." The compact (collapsed) version inside {{multiple issues}}, as suggested by Martin above, can just be the single linked word ("discuss"). Pinging Mr. Stradivarius, the primary author of that module. Would you like to implement this? wbm1058 (talk) 01:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Slow down - this discussion has only been open a couple of days. Let's wait for consensus before rushing off to change the template. I will note however that although we have a means to hide certain content on the compact version, we do not yet have any means to add additional content (such as parentheses). But let the technical discussion take a back seat for now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to be busy for the next couple of weeks, so I might not get round to it until after then, but I can take a look, certainly. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC option #2 - Option to link to centralized discussion[edit]

An editor that is adding several attention banners at the same time may prefer to link to a centralized discussion. This option would a allow an editor to create such a link in the parent template.

  1. Support as proposer. Boghog (talk) 05:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. Ambivalent: this may be useful occasionally but I'm not sure it is a good idea to encourage it. When someone comes and adds another issue to the template, you can be sure that they won't update or remove the talk page link, and then there will be a link to an irrelevant discussion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
    The search links in the collapsed box above show there is not a single example of two attention banners in the same article pointing to different sections of the talk page. Based on current usage at least, the probability of such an occurrence would appear highly unlikely. Boghog (talk) 10:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  3. Ambivalent, given the limited times that discussions are even initiated. If a centralized discussion link is implemented, then all discussion links should be shown in the {{multiple issues}} messages, and when there are both a generic discussion and one or more specific discussions, then the specific discussion sections should be refactored to be sub-sections of the generic discussion. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  4. Oppose allowing manual manipulation of the primary talk link, and oppose subduing it under any circumstances. The current use of {{Multiple issues 2}} (>.<) demonstrates perfectly how the ability to manipulate the primary talk link leads to bias. Arguing that it should only be used to link to a centralised discussion with subsections for each child issue, is fair enough, but that is proven to not be the case in the one improper utilisation of this functionality; the one time this feature is used, it's used to do the very thing it's not supposed to be doing. That's not a good track record, or indication that it's likely to work out better if widespread implementation were possible. In the case of subduing/hiding the primary talk link, each child issue would HAVE TO HAVE an associated talk section shown, or a default to what? To the standard talk page link - which we have already? Why recode a template to move a perfectly well understood feature to be stated multiple times elsewhere? Summary: A primary link to the associated talk page will never be wrong, but changing it or removing it can be. fredgandt 16:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
    Exactly what bias is {{Multiple issues 2}} introducing? All the attention banners in Acetone peroxide were introduced by one editor. Hence it makes sense to direct all links to the same talk page section. I agree with you that the primary link to the to the talk page will never be wrong, but it could make it more difficult to find the one and only one discussion that based on present usage is likely to exist. Please allow editors that introduced the attention banners in the first place the flexibility to direct the discussion to the relevant talk page section. And please don't underestimate editors intelligence. Boghog (talk) 19:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
    There are multiple issues with a talk link pointing to a section devoted to only one of them; how much more biased could it be? I take things as I find them, and my estimate of most editors intelligence is quite high. Please don't assume to know anything about how I estimate anything, ever. fredgandt 20:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
    Bias is impossible if there are no other talk page discussions. Certainly there were no other discussion in the Acetone peroxide article. More importantly, there are zero examples of attention banners pointing to different talk page sections in the same article. It might happen, but current usage suggests that this would be a rare event. Most importantly, editors that introduce these attention banners should be allowed the flexibility to direct talk page links to a centralized discussion. Boghog (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Template-protected edit request on 3 June 2016[edit]

Instead of the "see how" link to Help:Maintenance template removal following the words "improve it", include a link to that page at the end of the text but displaying as "Learn how & when to remove these template messages". This will make the wording consistent with single-issue maintenance templates such as {{Unreferenced}}; it will stand out more and is more appropriate, as the Help page is about tag removal as well as article improvement. Mockup here : Noyster (talk), 11:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@Noyster: I synced it to the sandbox, please review Template:Multiple_issues/testcases and let me know if this is what you are expecting. — xaosflux Talk 13:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Xaosflux, yes the present & proposed versions are as seen in the New syntax section, although the changes have not come through in some of the examples under Wrapped vs not wrapped: Noyster (talk), 14:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
The "learn how/when" message is originally from Module:Message box/configuration, which Module:Message box uses. {{Unreferenced}} uses |removalnotice= to get that message, but so does this template, somehow. I think "hard-coding" it in the current sandbox version may not be the best way to go. — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 14:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
@Noyster: not to worry about the Wrapped vs not wrapped section. Those exmaples look to be live-only. They preview fine in the sandbox version. — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 15:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
@Andy M. Wang: it appears that "remvoalnotice=yes" is set on this already, but not working? — xaosflux Talk 15:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Special:Diff/717740031 suggests that |removalnotice= didn't work initially, or that implementing a fix for removalnotice to work involved much more work, I suppose. Noyster, I'm personally not in favor of making the change as currently suggested, mostly because the "learn how/when" message will exist in 2 places. The in-line "see how" is not too bad because this template works slightly differently than the single-message templates it wraps. — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 15:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Taking some back - the message's difference is that it's plural (oops) — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 15:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
@Noyster: Was the new param |talksection= intended for this change as well? — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 15:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
@Fuhghettaboutit: Can you take a look at this, looks like you did most of the rollouts for these? — xaosflux Talk 15:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
@Andy M. Wang: @Noyster: - if there are no objections I'm in favor of rolling Noyster's update to the main template, while additional work related to the "removalnotice=yes" parameter is pending. — xaosflux Talk 14:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: No objections to sync to the latest sandbox. I removed |talksection= since Noyster hasn't replied about it yet. — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 15:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. — xaosflux Talk 15:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Div instead of table edit request[edit]

Template:Multiple issues to 7 July version of /sandbox (compare)

The presence of a <th> implies the right side of the box (starting with "This article...") is a data table, nested inside another data table, the whole box (containing the "!" icon and the text). Rewriting the contents as a <div> can avoid confusion for screen reader users (see WP:LTAB). Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 07:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Applied a small tweak to match the current version a bit more closely. (??) Testcases look good. This new version still looks to be a few pixels thinner at the bottom, but it's probably negligible. Can probably sync in a day unless there are further comments — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 00:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Other message boxes don't have that extra space, so I assumed it was an unintended side effect of using a table, which adds default border-spacing:2px in most browsers. Either with or without margin/padding is fine by me, but in either case, the top and bottom should be equal, to keep it vertically centered when collapsed. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
@Matt Fitzpatrick: So I played around a bit more with spacing. The closest match (I think) is when the outer div has margins of 0.3em and ~0.17em and the inner div has a 0.4em top margin. More or less the results I'm personally getting on my screen in my browser at least. Thought that was a bit fussy and discarded that. I placed the inner div in the if itself to avoid extra spacing when there is no |1=. Top/bottom margins are now 0.2. I'll sync in half a day, unless there are comments. Thanks :) — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 05:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Margins look good. How should the collapsing work with no |1=? Right now it hides everything. Might make sense to remove the collapsing completely if no |1=. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 07:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
That's a really good point. Special:Diff/728875145 — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 07:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Synced. Please ping if there are any issues — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 17:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Add section parameter[edit]

Look at this section of Kalmar Union, it says "This article has multiple issues", it should say "This section has multiple issues". ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk 04:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Eric0928: It already has |section=. See Kalmar Union change. — JJMC89(T·C) 06:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Fair use[edit]

Is there a fair use warning template I can use with this one? For articles that use too many non-free images (screenshots of video games). SharkD  Talk  02:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)